To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Wisconsin Progressive Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wisconsin Progressive Party (1934–1946) was a political party that briefly held a dominant role in Wisconsin politics.[1]

The Party was the brainchild of Philip La Follette and Robert M. La Follette, Jr., the sons of the famous Wisconsin Governor and Senator Robert M. La Follette, Sr.. The party was established in 1934 as an alliance between the longstanding "Progressive" faction of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, led by the La Follette family and their political allies, and certain radical farm and labor groups active in Wisconsin at the time.[2] The party served as a vehicle for Philip to run for re-election as Governor of Wisconsin and for Robert to run for re-election to the United States Senate. Both men were successful in their bids, and the party saw a number of other victories as well in the 1934 and 1936 election, notably winning several U.S. House seats and a majority of the Wisconsin State Senate and Wisconsin State Assembly in 1936. Their grip on power was short-lived, however, and they succumbed to a united Democratic and Republican front in 1938 which swept most of them out of office, including Philip. They were further crippled that year by attempting to expand the party to the national level.

Orland Steen Loomis was the last Progressive to be elected Governor of Wisconsin, in the 1942 election. He died, however, before his inauguration as governor. Robert La Follette Jr. held on to his Senate seat until 1946 when the La Follettes decided to disband the party, and to run Robert for re-election as a Republican rather than a Progressive. He was defeated in the Republican primary for the 1946 Senate elections, by Joe McCarthy.

During its heyday the Progressive Party usually did not run candidates in Milwaukee as there was a tacit agreement with the city's Socialists that progressive third parties should not fight each other, despite strong ideological differences between the two movements (Socialist Assemblyman George L. Tews during a 1932 debate on unemployment compensation and how to fund it argued for the Socialist bill and against the Progressive substitute, stating that a Progressive was "a Socialist with the brains knocked out"[3]), when both faced opposition from the conservative major parties. During the period from 1939 on, the Progressives and the Socialists of Milwaukee sometimes made common cause in a Farmer-Labor-Progressive Federation, with Socialist legislators caucusing with the minority Progressives. In 1942, Socialist Frank P. Zeidler, later to be elected Mayor of Milwaukee, was the nominee on the Progressive party line for State Treasurer of Wisconsin.

The last politician to hold office from the Wisconsin Progressive Party nationally was Merlin Hull, a U.S. Representative from Wisconsin, elected as a Progressive in 1944. (Hull continued to be re-elected on the Republican ticket, and served until his death in 1953.)

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    1 511 669
    708
    2 004
  • ✪ The Progressive Era: Crash Course US History #27
  • ✪ Progressive Party (United States, 1912)
  • ✪ American History - Part 167 - Coolidge - Reelected in 1924

Transcription

Episode 27: Progressive Era Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. history, and today we’re gonna talk about Progressives. No Stan Progressives. Yes. You know, like these guys who used to want to bomb the means of production, but also less radical Progressives. Mr. Green, Mr. Green. Are we talking about, like, tumblr progressive where it’s half discussions of misogyny and half high-contrast images of pizza? Because if so, I can get behind that. Me from the past, your anachronism is showing. Your Internet was green letters on a black screen. But no, The Progressive Era was not like tumblr, however I will argue that it did indirectly make tumblr and therefore JLaw gifsets possible, so that’s something. So some of the solutions that progressives came up with to deal with issues of inequality and injustice don’t seem terribly progressive today, and also it kinda overlapped with the gilded age, and progressive implies, like, progress, presumably progress toward freedom and justice, which is hard to argue about an era that involved one of the great restrictions on freedom in American history, prohibition. So maybe we shouldn’t call it the Progressive Era at all. I g--Stan, whatever, roll the intro. Intro So, if the Gilded Age was the period when American industrial capitalism came into its own, and people like Mark Twain began to criticize its associated problems, then the Progressive era was the age in which people actually tried to solve those problems through individual and group action. As the economy changed, Progressives also had to respond to a rapidly changing political system. The population of the U.S. was growing and its economic power was becoming ever more concentrated. And sometimes, Progressives responded to this by opening up political participation and sometimes by trying to restrict the vote. The thing is, broad participatory democracy doesn’t always result in effective government--he said, sounding like the Chinese national Communist Party. And that tension between wanting to have government for, of, and by the people and wanting to have government that’s, like, good at governing kind of defined the Progressive era. And also our era. But progressives were most concerned with the social problems that revolved around industrial capitalist society. And most of these problems weren’t new by 1900, but some of the responses were. Companies and, later, corporations had a problem that had been around at least since the 1880s: they needed to keep costs down and profits high in a competitive market. And one of the best ways to do this was to keep wages low, hours long, and conditions appalling: your basic house-elf situation. Just kidding, house elves didn’t get wages. Also, by the end of the 19th century, people started to feel like these large, monopolistic industrial combinations, the so-called trusts, were exerting too much power over people’s lives. The 1890s saw federal attempts to deal with these trusts, such as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, but overall, the Federal Government wasn’t where most progressive changes were made. For instance, there was muckraking, a form of journalism in which reporters would find some muck and rake it. Mass circulation magazines realized they could make money by publishing exposés of industrial and political abuse, so they did. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? I bet it involves muck. The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I’m either correct or I get shocked. “Let a man so much as scrape his finger pushing a truck in the pickle-rooms, and all the joints in his fingers might be eaten by the acid, one by one. Of the butchers and floormen, the beef-boners and trimmers, and all those who used knives, you could scarcely find a person who had the use of his thumb; time and time again the base of it had been slashed, till it was a mere lump of flesh against which the man pressed the knife to hold it. ... They would have no nails – they had worn them off pulling hides.” Wow. Well now I am hyper-aware of and grateful for my thumbs. They are just in excellent shape. I am so glad, Stan, that I am not a beef-boner at one of the meat-packing factories written about in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. No shock for me! Oh Stan, I can only imagine how long and hard you’ve worked to get the phrase “beef-boner” into this show. And you finally did it. Congratulations. By the way, just a little bit of trivia: The Jungle was the first book I ever read that made me vomit. So that’s a review. I don’t know if it’s positive, but there you go. Anyway, at the time, readers of The Jungle were more outraged by descriptions of rotten meat than by the treatment of meatpacking workers: The Jungle led to the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act of 1906. That’s pretty cool for Upton Sinclair, although my books have also led to some federal legislation, such as the HAOPT, which officially declared Hazel and Augustus the nation’s OTP. So, to be fair, writers had been describing the harshness of industrial capitalism for decades, so muckraking wasn’t really that new, but the use of photography for documentation was. Lewis Hine, for instance, photographed child laborers in factories and mines, bringing Americans face to face with the more than 2 million children under the age of 15 working for wages. And Hine’s photos helped bring about laws that limited child labor. But even more important than the writing and photographs and magazines when it came to improving conditions for workers was Twitter … what’s that? There was no twitter? Still? What is this 1812? Alright, so apparently still without Twitter, workers had to organize into unions to get corporations to reduce hours and raise their pay. Also some employers started to realize on their own that one way to mitigate some of the problems of industrialization was to pay workers better, like in 1914, Henry Ford paid his workers an average of $5 per day, unheard of at the time. . Whereas today I pay Stan and Danica 3x that and still they whine. Ford’s reasoning was that better-paid workers would be better able to afford the Model Ts that they were making. And indeed, Ford’s annual output rose from 34,000 cars to 730,000 between 1910 and 1916, and the price of a Model T dropped from $700 to $316. Still, Henry Ford definitely forgot to be awesome sometimes; he was anti-Semitic, he used spies in his factories, and he named his child Edsel. Also like most employers at the turn of the century, he was virulently anti-union. So, while the AFL was organizing the most privileged industrial workers, another union grew up to advocate for rights for a larger swath of the workforce, especially the immigrants who dominated unskilled labor: The International Workers of the World. They were also known as the Wobblies, and they were founded in 1905 to advocate for “every wage-worker, no matter what his religion, fatherland or trade,” and not, as the name Wobblies suggests, just those fans of wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey. The Wobblies were radical socialists; ultimately they wanted to see capitalism and the state disappear in revolution. Now, most progressives didn’t go that far, but some, following the ideas of Henry George, worried that economic progress could produce a dangerous unequal distribution of wealth that could only be cured by … taxes. But, more Progressives were influenced by Simon W. Patten who prophesied that industrialization would bring about a new civilization where everyone would benefit from the abundance and all the leisure time that all these new labor-saving devices could bring. This optimism was partly spurred by the birth of a mass consumption society. I mean, Americans by 1915 could purchase all kinds of new-fangled devices, like washing machines, or vacuum cleaners, automobiles, record players. It’s worth underscoring that all this happened in a couple generations: I mean, in 1850, almost everyone listened to music and washed their clothes in nearly the same way that people did 10,000 years ago. And then BOOM. And for many progressives, this consumer culture, to quote our old friend Eric Foner, “became the foundation for a new understanding of freedom as access to the cornucopia of goods made available by modern capitalism.” And this idea was encouraged by new advertising that connected goods with freedom, using “liberty” as a brand name or affixing the Statue of Liberty to a product. By the way, Crash Course is made exclusively in the United States of America, the greatest nation on earth ever. (Libertage.) That’s a lie, of course, but you’re allowed to lie in advertising. But in spite of this optimism, most progressives were concerned that industrial capitalism, with its exploitation of labor and concentration of wealth, was limiting, rather than increasing freedom, but depending on how you defined “freedom,” of course. Industrialization created what they referred to as “the labor problem” as mechanization diminished opportunities for skilled workers and the supervised routine of the factory floor destroyed autonomy. The scientific workplace management advocated by efficiency expert Frederick W. Taylor required rigid rules and supervision in order to heighten worker productivity. So if you’ve ever had a job with a defined number of bathroom breaks, that’s why. Also “Taylorism” found its way into classrooms; and anyone who’s had to sit in rows for 45 minute periods punctuated by factory-style bells knows that this atmosphere is not particularly conducive to a sense of freedom. Now this is a little bit confusing because while responding to worker exploitation was part of the Progressive movement, so was Taylorism itself because it was an application of research, observation, and expertise in response to the vexing problem of how to increase productivity. And this use of scientific experts is another hallmark of the Progressive era, one that usually found its expression in politics. American Progressives, like their counterparts in the Green Sections of Not-America, sought government solutions to social problems. Germany, which is somewhere over here, pioneered “social legislation” with its minimum wage, unemployment insurance and old age pension laws, but the idea that government action could address the problems and insecurities that characterized the modern industrial world, also became prominent in the United States. And the notion that an activist government could enhance rather than threaten people’s freedom was something new in America. Now, Progressives pushing for social legislation tended to have more success at the state and local level, especially in cities, which established public control over gas and water and raised taxes to pay for transportation and public schools. Whereas federally the biggest success was, like, Prohibition, which, you know, not that successful. But anyway, if all that local collectivist investment sounds like Socialism, it kind of is. I mean, by 1912 the Socialist Party had 150,000 members and had elected scores of local officials like Milwaukee mayor Emil Seidel. Some urban progressives even pushed to get rid of traditional democratic forms altogether. A number of cities were run by commissions of experts or city managers, who would be chosen on the basis of some demonstrated expertise or credential rather than their ability to hand out turkeys at Christmas or find jobs for your nephew’s sister’s cousin. Progressive editor Walter Lippman argued for applying modern scientific expertise to solve social problems in his 1914 book Drift and Mastery, writing that scientifically trained experts “could be trusted more fully than ordinary citizens to solve America’s deep social problems.” This tension between government by experts and increased popular democratic participation is one of the major contradictions of the Progressive era. The 17th amendment allowed for senators to be elected directly by the people rather than by state legislatures, and many states adopted primaries to nominate candidates, again taking power away from political parties and putting it in the hands of voters. And some states, particularly western ones like California adopted aspects of even more direct democracy, the initiative, which allowed voters to put issues on the ballot, and the referendum, which allows them to vote on laws directly. And lest you think that more democracy is always good, I present you with California. But many Progressives wanted actual policy made by experts who knew what was best for the people, not the people themselves. And despite primaries in direct elections of senators it’s hard to argue that the Progressive Era was a good moment for democratic participation, since many Progressives were only in favor of voting insofar as it was done by white, middle class, Protestant voters. Alright. Let’s Go to the Thought Bubble. Progressives limited immigrants’ participation in the political process through literacy tests and laws requiring people to register to vote. Voter registration was supposedly intended to limit fraud and the power of political machines. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar, but it actually just suppressed voting generally. Voting gradually declined from 80% of male Americans voting in the 1890s to the point where today only about 50% of eligible Americans vote in presidential elections. But an even bigger blow to democracy during the Progressive era came with the Jim Crow laws passed by legislatures in southern states, which legally segregated the South. First, there was the deliberate disenfranchisement of African Americans. The 15th amendment made it illegal to deny the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude but said nothing about the ability to read, so many Southern states instituted literacy requirements. Other states added poll taxes, requiring people to pay to vote, which effectively disenfranchised large numbers of African American people, who were disproportionately poor. The Supreme Court didn’t help: In 1896, it made one of its most famous bad decisions, Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling that segregation in public accommodations, in Homer Plessy’s case a railroad car, did not violate the 14th amendment’s Equal Protection clause. As long as black railroad cars were equal to white ones, it was A-OK to have duplicate sets of everything. Now, creating two sets of equal quality of everything would get really expensive, so Southern states didn’t actually do it. Black schools, public restrooms, public transportation opportunities--the list goes on and on--would definitely be separate, and definitely not equal. Thanks, ThoughtBubble. Now, of course, as we’ve seen Progressive ideas inspired a variety of responses, both for Taylorism and against it, both for government by experts and for direct democracy. Similarly, in the Progressive era, just as the Jim Crow laws were being passed, there were many attempts to improve the lives of African Americans. The towering figure in this movement to “uplift” black southerners was Booker T. Washington, a former slave who became the head of the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, a center for vocational education. And Washington urged southern black people to emphasize skills that could make them successful in the contemporary economy. The idea was that they would earn the respect of white people by demonstrating their usefulness and everyone would come to respect each other through the recognition of mutual dependence while continuing to live in separate social spheres. But Washington’s accommodationist stance was not shared by all African Americans. WEB DuBois advocated for full civil and political rights for black people and helped to found the NAACP, which urged African Americans to fight for their rights through “persistent, manly agitation.” So I wanted to talk about the Progressive Era today not only because it shows up on a lot of tests, but because Progressives tried to tackle many of the issues that we face today, particularly concerning immigration and economic justice, and they used some of the same methods that we use today: organization, journalistic exposure, and political activism. Now, we may use tumblr or tea party forums, but the same concerns motivate us to work together. And just as today, many of their efforts were not successful because of the inherent difficulty in trying to mobilize very different interests in a pluralistic nation. In some ways their platforms would have been better suited to an America that was less diverse and complex. But it was that very diversity and complexity that gave rise and still gives rise to the urge toward progress in the first place. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Rojas, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Every week there’s a new caption for the libertage. You can suggest captions in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course. If you like it, and if you’re watching the credits you probably do, make sure you’re subscribed. And as we say in my hometown don’t forget to be awesome...That was more dramatic than it sounded. Progressive Era -

Contents

Officeholders from the Wisconsin Progressive Party

Federal office

State office

Notes

  1. ^ On This Day in Wisconsin History; On This Day: May 19 Wisconsin Historical Society
  2. ^ Wisconsin Progressive Party The Historical Marker Database
  3. ^ Kaveny, Edward T. "$10,000,000 Tax: Assembly Passes Compromise Bill by 73 to 15 Vote" Milwaukee Sentinel January 6, 1932; p. 1, cols. 7-8

Sources

  • Beck, Elmer A. The Sewer Socialists: A History of the Socialist Party of Wisconsin, 1897–1940. Fennimore, WI: Westburg Associates, 1982.
  • Glad, Paul W. The History of Wisconsin, Volume V: War, A New Era, and Depression, 1914–1940. Edited by William F. Thompson. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1990.
  • "Progressive Party, Wisconsin." Encyclopedia of American History. Answers Corporation, 2006. Answers.com 26 February 2009. http://www.answers.com/topic/progressive-party-wisconsin
This page was last edited on 9 April 2017, at 20:24
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.